THE MEDIAN SIB

Saturday, January 12, 2008

With the victimization mentality of the Democratic party, this should prove to be an interesting campaign. All the political commentary on the MSM is a frequent source of entertainment. There have been discussions about how the fact that Obama is black might influence his campaign in one way or the other - either from people voting FOR him because he is black or from people voting AGAINST him because he is black. There have been some wonderfully revealing soundbites on that particular topic that show just how racist many in the wonderfully “progressive” Democratic party are.

I don’t recall any discussions in the news about how a person’s being white might affect their chances in an election.

The commentary after the New Hampshire primary was particularly humorous. First they had to decide if Hillary’s “human” side (i.e. her “I don’t want us to fall back” stage act) made more people vote for her - or was it because when it came right down to it, some people just couldn’t vote for a black person. Then they ponder whether America is ready for a female president.

Depending on who wins the Democratic nomination, there will be serious charges of either racism or sexism. It’s a lose-lose situation for the dems, and I think it’s hilarious. If Hillary is the nominee, the Obama crowd will claim that America is too racist to elect a black president. If Obama is nominated, the Hillary crowd will claim that America is too sexist to elect a woman president. And if John Edwards is elected, Obama’s and Hillary’s folks will claim that the nation is both sexist and racist.

I know absolutely no one who gives a rat’s ass whether our president is black, white, male or female. What people DO care about is what that person will do as president. Will he/she secure our borders? Will he/she handle the millions of illegal immigrants fairly but without compromise? Will he/she fight the war against Islamic extremism with courage and honor? Will he/she work to minimize people’s dependence on government?

So give it up, folks. If you lose a primary, or the Democratic nomination, or the presidential election, it will be because your beliefs and actions don’t mesh with the beliefs and actions of the majority of Americans. Period. Quit the blame and victim game.

Friday, January 11, 2008

I just saw this story over at Hot Air. It’s hilarious. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright makes no sense at all.

Albright’s message centered on the need for equality – not just domestically, but also on a global scale.

“If we were all rich, that would be very nice,” Albright said. “If we were all poor, it would be too bad, but we would be the same. What the problem is now is the poor know what the rich have as a result of information technology and the spread, generally, of knowledge. And, it creates a whole new host of problems in terms of disquiet and anger.”

It’s sad when a supposedly intelligent person can’t put together a coherent few sentences.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

There are many reasons - ethical and well thought-out reasons - that I could never in good conscience vote for any of the Democrats who are currently running for office. Here is just one of the reasons I could never vote for Barack Hussein Obama. From CNSNews:

Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.

He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede — as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor — that these babies, fully outside their mothers’ wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact “persons.”

“Persons,” of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.

I’m as much for equal rights for everyone as anybody could be. In deciding to have an abortion, however, the pregnant woman denies the basic rights of her unborn child. Yes a pregnancy can be quite devastating at times. However, it IS a human being that is killed during an abortion.

I’ve never understood how anyone could deny the person-ness of babies before birth. They have beating hearts when they’re just a few weeks old. I once exercised at a gym where an abortion survivor worked out - preparing for a marathon. Her name is Gianna Jessen, and I wrote about her over two years ago. Read about her experience. Gianna puts a real face to abortion.

If it is wrong to kill a baby after birth, then it is wrong to kill a baby before birth. The Democrats just don’t get it.

I always get tickled when I hear people say “For all intensive purposes” instead of “for all intents and purposes.” I was reading another blog this morning (I won’t embarrass the writer by telling which one) that used the phrase “intensive purposes.” I’m sorry, but when someone uses language so incorrectly, it’s difficult to pay much attention to the rest of what they’re saying or writing. “Intensive purposes” really doesn’t make sense in that context. Do people even THINK about the meaning of what they’re saying or writing? I dated a guy once who sent out a group email with the phrase “intensive purposes” in it. Although it made me cringe, I never pointed it out.

For what it’s worth, folks, the phrase is “FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES.”

Thursday, March 16, 2006

Last week I wrote about Glenn Reynolds' book, An Army of Davids. At that time I had only heard about it. After reading about it in various blogs, though, I ordered it immediately. It finally got here Tuesday, and I've been reading it every chance I get, which isn't much. Still not finished with it (just finished chapter 2 - I've had to catch up on some book club reading first), but here's what I like up to this point:

Benefits of working from home:

". . . kids who get to watch their parents work up close - the way kids did in the pre-Industrial Revolution, cottage industry days - are likely to have a much greater appreciation of how the world of work operates. . . . At the very least, however, they'll see work behavior modeled in their presence."

On the trend away from big businesses and back to self-employment:

" . . . people who are self-employed are far more aware that there's no such thing as a free lunch and far more likely to look at the bottom line."

And also:

"The secret to success in big business and politics in the twenty-first century, I think, will involve figuring out a way to capitalize on the phenomenon of lots of people doing what they want to do, rather than - as in previous centuries - figuring out ways to make lots of people do what you want them to."

So far, I like it. It isn't the kind of reading that makes me want to stay up late to read it, but I've enjoyed reading it for awhile for the past two evenings.

The purpose of the meme is to get to know everyone who participates a little bit better every Thursday. Visiting fellow Thirteeners is encouraged! If you participate, leave the link to your Thirteen in others comments. It’s easy, and fun! Be sure to update your Thirteen with links that are left for you, as well! I will link to everyone who participates and leaves a link to their 13 things. Trackbacks, pings, comment links accepted!View More Thursday Thirteen Participants